2025 Southeast and Yakutat Finfish and Shellfish (1/30/25)

And good timing, sir. Let's go ahead and break for lunch. We will come back at 1:30 and we will begin Committee of the Whole Group 2 work. Thank you.

All right, welcome back everyone. The time is 1:40. We're going to go ahead and commence work on Committee of the Whole Group 2. Group 2, which includes commercial subsistence, sport, and personal use groundfish. There are 21 proposals in this Committee of the Whole.

The chair is Mr. Zarey, and so I will go ahead and turn that over to him to lead Committee of the Whole Group 2. Mr. Zarey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Because we probably have some new people here, maybe I'll go over the ground rules, which you've already— some of you have already heard. Um, it is the intent of the board to deal with the merits of the proposal based on the general principles used by the board.

The board does not deal in personalities, thus committee participants are admonished not to refer by name to any person, any staff member, or any board member. We're here to gain new information from the public, not answer questions. Once participants begin repeating themselves things we've already heard, we'll move on to the next proposal. The committees are not a forum for debate nor a platform for repeating information already received. When you come up to the mic, please state your name and who you represent.

Yes. And so with that, I will— we're going to— we have Yes. Yeah, we have 21 proposals and then we'll start off with Proposal 191 and I'll turn it over to the department.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. I'm the groundfish project leader in Southeast Alaska for the commercial fisheries. Proposal 191 would amend the logbook requirements for vessels fishing for groundfish with pot and longline gear.

Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Okay, do we have any— is the proposer present and would like to speak to this proposal? If not, we'll— oh, I'm sorry. And a lot of these proposals are going to be from the department, so I'll try not to make that mistake again. Go ahead.

Chair Zareh, usually we don't usually do staff comments about it until the deliberations. And so, yeah, I don't, I don't think we have. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. You know, it's described there. We don't have any additional comments.

Okay. Is— would anybody like to speak to this proposal?

I don't think— I don't think we have anybody to speak to it. So we will go to the next proposal, 192, Department. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll and I am the assistant management biologist in Southeast Alaska for the commercial fisheries.

Proposal 192 would allow pots used in the personal use sablefish fishery to be longlined. Thank you. It would— the proposer like to speak to this proposal.

Anybody else in favor or just a comment? Don't think we have anybody, so we'll move on to the next proposal, 193.

For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 193 would allow commercial fisheries entry commission permit holders fishing for groundfish or halibut with mechanical jig and hand troll gear in state waters of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska area to to use a deepwater release mechanism to return rockfish to the ocean. Mr. Chair, thank you. Would the proposal like to speak to this?

Okay. How about anybody in favor or then opposed?

Doesn't seem like we have anybody, so we'll go on to Proposal 194. Department. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll.

Proposal 194 would reduce the minimum inside diameter of circular escape rings from 3¾ inches to 3½ inches on pots used to take sablefish in the subsistence, commercial, and personal use sablefish fisheries in the Northern Southeast Inside NSCI Chatham Strait and the Southern Southeast Inside SSCI Clarence Strait subdistricts. Thank you, department. Do we— could anybody in favor of this? Are there any opposed? Who would like to speak?

No, doesn't seem like we have anybody. We will move to 195. Department. For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 195 would lengthen the season for the Southern Southeast Inside, or SSEI, Subdistrict pot and longline sablefish fishery to coincide with the federal individual fishing quota, or IFQ, sablefish fishery season, which opens early to mid-March and closes in early December.

Mr. Chair. Thank you. Do we have anybody like to speak to this in favor or against the proposer? Okay.

Hearing none, we will move on to Proposal 196.

Department.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 196 would reduce the minimum inside diameter of circular escape from 3¾ inches to 3�� inches on pots used to take sablefish in the commercial state-managed sablefish fisheries in the Northern Southeast Inside (NSCI) Chatham Strait and the Southern Southeast Inside (SSCI) Clarence Strait subdistricts. Thank you for that.

And then I'd like to add that this is supposed to be withdrawn from Alpha, but I do not know if there's an RC. RC6 apparently has been withdrawn or withdraws the proposal. Oh, OK. All right. Do we have anybody like to speak now?

Joel Asifa. We also withdrew this proposal. It's in PC468 and support the department's proposal. Thank you for that. OK, it seems OK. We have another comment.

Yep. Mr. Chair, this is Emily Scott from Alpha. I just wanted to concur with that, that we withdrew the proposal and defer to the department's recommendation of the reduced ring size. Thank you.

Miss—. I was having a sidebar and missed that. Was there an RC that specifically requested the withdrawal of support? You mean you made reference to the PC?

No, RC6 is not correct.

PC6. Is it PC6? My notes just say we withdrew it. It's in PC468. Representing CIFA.

And what about Alpha?

That would be PC6. I apologize. That's where we were. Thank you. Got it.

Okay. Don't see any more. We will move on to Proposal 197.

For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 197 would clarify and amend existing regulations regarding subsistence, personal use, and commercial groundfish fisheries in the Northern Southeast Inside, or NSEI, and Southern Southeast Insider SSEI subdistricts. For the record, we are working on some amended language with the Alaska Wildlife Troopers for this proposal. Mr. Chair, thank you for that.

And do I hear any— Miss, Miss Mendota, you're working—. You're working on language with troopers. What's the— what's substantive? I mean, this is the time to talk about what changes are from the proposal if you're— the department is working specifically on substitute language. Through the chair, Madam Chair, yes, we are working on substitute language to clarify that there will be 72 hours before the fishery, 72 hours after the fishery, and if commercial fishermen want to use subsistence or personal use pot gear or longline gear or other gear during the open fishery season, they must deregister and wait 72 hours before they can operate personal use or subsistence fishing gear.

Okay, thanks. I just wanted the public to be able to know kind of what the substantive sort of changes might be so that they can comment on it now if they would like. That's all. Thank you for that. Yep, you're welcome.

Thank you for that, Miss Mendotte. Um, uh, let's see, do we— I will go on to Proposal 198.

Mr. Chair, for the record, my name is Alex Tuka. I'm the Haines-Skagway Area Management Biologist for the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 198. Based on the text found in this proposal, the department believes it is intended to increase the resident bag and possession limit for sablefish from 4 to 6.

Thank you for that. Do I have anybody that would like to speak to the proposal? The proposer first, and then the anybody Anybody else in favor of it?

My name is Mark Holst. I'm not necessarily for or against this proposal, but I think it's, it's important to note that Proposal 105, which will be taken up in the next section, seeks to modify sport fishing regulation in saltwater subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act by removing differential regulations between residents and non-residents. If we raise the resident sport fish limit, then if Proposal 105 gets adopted, we will in effect also be raising the non-resident limit in the EEZ. I would suggest the Board to consider possible guided and unguided limits for the sport sablefish fishery in the EEZ.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No? Okay, next.

Yeah, Nels Evans from Petersburg Vessel Owners Association. I would like to mirror those comments, and I would also like to say that we would tentatively support this as long as there is that clarification that this is for resident sport bag limit, because the way it's written, it could be construed one way if you read the proposal, but then getting into the rationale, you understand that it is meant for residents. So we would like to see that clarified out in order to maintain our support. Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, my name is Andy Kittams. For the record, I'm a commercial fisherman and participate in both these state fisheries here in Southeast Alaska. And I want to reiterate what Nels Evans just said from PVOA, that I support this. I don't want to have any restrictions on, uh, resident sport fishing for sablefish. But if it's non-resident, as this proposal states, I do not support this.

So this proposal is somewhat confusing because in the rationale for it they say it's just for residents, but the proposal itself, it says it's just for sport fishing. So it's somewhat misleading.

Thank you for that. Thank you.

Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan, Klinkanet Community Council. I'm only in favor— or we should say we are only in favor of this proposal as is amended by the Ketchikan AC. I think there needs to be clarification between resident and non-resident. We certainly won't support it unless there is that distinction from the increase for residents. So that's it.

Thank you.

Ellen Hannan, Craig AC. Sorry, teacher voice.

Our AC was strongly in favor of this as stated for residents, and especially noting that it's increasing the limits advantageous with fuel prices and the distance people have to go to gather some for food. Thank you.

Thank you. No questions from the board. Oh, go ahead. Hi, Emily Scott, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. I'd like to echo the comments that have already come up about this proposal.

We would also suggest that the board consider indexing bag limit adjustments to the allowable biological catch, including some kind of mechanism to bring that number back down in the case that the population changes.

Um, no questions from the board, so thank you.

And we, hearing no more comments, we will take up Proposal 199.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, my name is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 199 would add a weather delay provision that would postpone the opening date of the directed commercial shelf rockfish and the directed lingcod fisheries if the weather forecast meets gale warning or higher criteria in management areas in the eastern Gulf of Alaska area. Thank you.

Anybody like to speak to this in favor?

Louie Holst. We worked with the department to come up with new amended language for 199, basically a delay for all 4 areas in the event of a triggering weather delay. This will protect management objectives while providing safety for vessel crews. Being a family operation, safety is my top priority. We're in support of the amended language for 199.

Mr. Carpenter, thank you. The amended language that you speak of, is there an RC that you can reference? Not yet. It's, it's still, still being worked on. Yes.

All right. Thanks.

No other questions by the board. Thank you. Come up. Yep.

My name is Patrick Baum. I'm the chair of the Elfin Cove Advisory Committee, board member of Alaska Trollers Association, representing the Elfin Cove Advisory Committee. We also were in support of this proposition. And only with the understanding that it would be all regions being closed to a weather warning, not just single ones, as I believe, echoing the words that were just said. And I also have not seen any amended language on this.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Oh, we have a question. Mr. Svensson. Hi.

Does the weather include the salt spray too? That came up earlier today as part of the whole weather routine? I mean, in a gale warning, I'm not necessarily sure. I know for the lingcod, it's more on the outside waters, freezing spray, and at that time of year might not be such an issue. And I'm not 100% sure on that.

That's just my opinion. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that. We'll— Move on to the next proposal. 200.

For the record, my name is Ray Urschman. Proposal 200 would adopt a catch reporting requirement for directed lingcod fisheries for the Eastern Gulf of Alaska area. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Anybody want to speak in favor or against on this proposal? Hearing none, we will move on to Proposal 201.

Proposal 201 would clarify lingcod bycatch overage requirements for groundfish longline and salmon troll fisheries in the Southeast District. We are again working on amended language with the Alaska Wildlife Troopers to improve this language to clear— to clarify forfeiture of the overage, which would require the overage to be sold. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Anybody want to comment on that in favor or against? Hearing none, we will move on to Proposal 202.

Proposal 202 would clarify that only one line can be used for dinglebar gear in the commercial directed lingcod fishery. Mr. Chair. Thank you for that. We have somebody to speak.

Come up.

My name is Mark Holst. I'm speaking in regards to RC-29. The intent of this RC is to amend the language in 5AAC28.130 to clearly define what constitutes a single dinglebar troll wire without redefining what legal dinglebar troll gear is. The confusion within the fleet over what constitutes a single dinglebar troll gurdy line simply cannot exist with these amendments. I find it extremely unfair to adversely affect the law-abiding participants of the dinglebar fishery by adding unnecessary language that further complicates regulation and creates numerous safety concerns.

We feel these amendments are a happy medium between making this regulation easily enforceable, which we fully support, without changing the historic fundamentals of the fishery. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on.

Ms. Van Der Doet. So you said you have got amended language? We submitted amended language in an RC. Which RC? Do you have the number yet?

29. Okay. Thank you. I might have missed it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Louie Holst. I want to talk about RC-29 as well. It's become glaringly clear that very few people have a very good understanding of this, of this dinglebar fishery. Safety is, for my crew, is my main concern. I feel this amended language is a good compromise.

You know, nothing, none of the other gurdy troll wires can be attached. It's clear, concise, and easily enforced. And, um, yeah, I just, uh, I think this takes care of any of those enforcement issues while protecting the historic fishery. Miss VanDort, thank you. Were you able to have conversations with enforcement about this?

A little bit, but not with, I guess, not with the right people, but we had conversations, but. Okay, so I'm just asking, 'cause I'm just trying to figure, you said that you think this would make, this would work for enforcement. I'm just curious if you checked with the law enforcement. Well, yeah, I did talk to the gentleman that was here earlier, but he was, said it wasn't his call, so. Got it, okay.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yep.

Patrick Baum, the Elfin Cove Advisory Committee. We originally supported this proposal and we also would support the amended language in the previously mentioned RC. Thank you.

Thank you for that. And come up. Yep. Hi, Emily Scott, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. I'd like to also echo that we are supportive of this proposal with the amended language.

Thank you.

And we will move on to Proposal 203.

Mr. Chair, Troy Tiedencko, Sitka Area Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposal 203 would liberalize lingcod regulations for nonresident unguided anglers fishing in southern southeast waters. Mr. Chair, thank you.

Is the proposer All right, anybody in favor or opposed?

And okay, we will move on to Proposal 204. Oh, okay, sorry about that. Go ahead. Apologies, I probably should have got up sooner. Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan, Klinkenhaida Community Council.

Our body does not support this proposal.

We feel that it will just create confusion and issues with enforcement of the new language. We don't support it.

No questions from the board. Thank you.

Ellen Hannan, Craig AC. We were strongly against this proposal as well, again for enforcement and creating another class of things people had to watch out for on the water. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will now— we'll take up Proposal 204.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, this is Alex McCarroll. Proposal 204. This would allow pots to be longlined in the state waters of the Eastern Gulf of Alaska's commercial Pacific cod fishery.

Thank you.

Yep. Come on up. For the record, Jared Bright. This is— I'm the author of 204. There's no opposition to this to my knowledge.

I just would direct the board to the staff comments outlining the benefits of Slinky Pots adopting this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

And we'll move on to Proposal 205.

For the record, my name is Rhea Ehrschman. Proposal 205 would allow the retention of Pacific cod and rockfish, including thornyhead rockfish, in pot gear in the personal use bottom fishery. Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Anybody want to speak to this in favor or in opposition? Hearing none and no board comments. We will move on to proposal 206.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm Kelly Reppert, the Ketchikan Area Management Biologist for Sport Fish Division. Proposed 206 would reopen the yelloweye sport fishery for residents with a bag limit of 1 fish, possession limit of 2 fish, and no annual or size limit.

Thank you. Would anybody like to speak in favor or opposition to this proposal?

Hi, Emily Scott, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. We support this proposal, especially based off of the department's support that it would not go over the allocation. We opened up this resident DSR sport fishery. Of course, we want to understand the importance of conservation of this long-lived species, but based on the comments and the projections, it would not pose that threat. So we are in support of this and increasing the opportunity for residents.

Thank you. Yep.

Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan Tlingit Haida Community Council. Our body supports this proposal.

We won't speak on behalf of all of Indigenous people across Southeast, but in both the Ketchikan and Prince of Wales area, if you were to ask any of us or most of us on if we had to choose one rockfish to harvest over any other, any others, it would absolutely be yelloweye rockfish. So Just general support for this proposal. Thank you. And we will move on to Proposal 207.

Mr. Chair, Proposal 207 would reopen the nonresident sport fishery for demersal shelf rockfish, excluding yelloweye, with a bag and possession limit of 1 fish and an annual limit of 2 fish. Thank you.

Any— the proposer or in favor?

For the record, Curt Whitehead. Yeah, we are in support of this proposal. We are working with staff. Originally it started out as an opportunity for for DSR species, and now we've learned that there might be an opportunity for yelloweye, but there is— staff is working on it, and I think we're going to submit an RC next.

Thank you. Come on up. Oh, oh, okay.

Go ahead. Hi again, Emily Scott, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. I'd just like to say that we oppose these proposals. Reopening the nonresident DSR fishery for non-yelloweye or yelloweye, if that's going to be added, will place excessive pressure on this stock and is projected to go over the overfishing levels. So we would urge the board to consider that result when looking at this.

I think that there are avenues for this data collection. Heard in public testimony that there is fleet observations of an increased population in these shallow water ecosystems. There are avenues to be able to conduct that research with the department through other organizations. I'd be happy to talk to anybody who's interested in those options, but we would just urge the board to wait for that confirmation that these stocks are healthy before reopening the sport fishery for non-residents.

Thank you. Next.

Hi, Stacy Waynesick, ASC Chair. Our committee met on this and discussed it and opposed it 0 to 14. We had heard a presentation about the increased intake on rockfish from the charter fleet, you know, to try and fill the gap of fewer halibut, fewer salmon. Really targeting these species hard, and the department was very concerned about what the future would hold with no limits on the number of charter operators and ever-increasing pressure. The residents make up about 7% of the catch of these rockfish, so 93% is non-resident.

Just to give you an idea, this isn't— you know, residents don't go out rockfish fishing. So this would— if you open it up to non-residents, it would have a huge impact. These species are really long-lived. They don't even start reproducing until they're like 18 years old or something. So it can go south very quickly is what I'm trying to say.

And we want to be really cautious about that. And that's why our AC was, was in opposition to opening to nonresidents. Thank you.

Okay, next.

Thank you. Kim Mondine, South Alaska Guides Organization. I want to echo the words of conservation. And taking some concern as we start opening up this fishery, we do support the resident fisheries, was discussed earlier. And if there's opportunity at a very short season, I'm under the impression that there's some language being developed around a very short season where maybe we can open up this opportunity.

The only concerns we have that it follows conservation, that we're not hitting it too hard, and that we make sure that we're doing it understanding the bio or the spawning I believe that happens in May and June. And so our request would be that it happens after that spawning session for a short period of time. If there's an allocation, or if there's allocation, and if there's a biomass to support that, and only if those two things are considered. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Patrick Baum, chair of the Elfin Cove Advisory Committee. The Elfin Cove Advisory Committee opposes this proposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, anybody? Okay. Uh, here we go.

Keenan Sanderson, Ketchikan Tlingit Haida Community Council. Uh, we, uh, strongly oppose all of these various proposals that are going to be opening it up to, uh, non-resident DSR fisheries.

I will again caution the board that no data is more of a reason to be more conservative than liberal within these fisheries, especially when there is no extensive survey data on inside waters.

However, is it of my opinion, if you are going to allow this or some form of this to go through, I would very much encourage you to allow a provision to be— for this fishery to be closed through emergency order so that we can keep in line with our conservation of all these different species.

Thank you. Yep. Anybody else? Nope. Okay, we will take up Proposal 208.

Mr. Chair, Proposal 208 would reopen the nonresident sport fishery for commercial shelf rockfish, excluding yelloweye, with a bag possession and annual limit of 1 fish.

Thank you. Proposer or— yep.

Ellen Hanna and Craig RC. This was our proposal. We were split on this and we did not have the staff comments when we wrote this proposal or know the option of yelloweye. After some discussion with staff, a reduced season length, and considering conservation means and stocks, it was— the numbers were crunched to determine that this would accomplish a short-term fishery for non-residents and stay within the GHL. So that's where we're at.

We were very split, but we did not have our staff data at the time. Thank you. Thank you. Nope. Okay, um, we'll move on to Proposal 209.

For the record. Mr. Chair, for the record, Jake Vilaskevich, Assistant Area Management Biologist for the Sitka area with the Division of Sport Fish. Proposal 209. This proposal will establish provisions for resident priority within emergency order authority for pelagic rockfish and prohibit resident restrictions through EO unless resident harvest exceeds 50% of the total harvest.

Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anybody like to propose or hear anybody like to speak in favor or opposed to it? And hearing, seeing none, we will move on to Proposal 210.

Mr. Chair, Proposal 210, reduce the bag and possession limit of pelagic rockfish in Southeast Alaska. Thank you. Um, and anybody in favor or want to speak to that? And, uh, seeing none, we will move on to our last proposal, and that is 211.

Mr. Chair, for the record, my name is Jan Rumble. I'm the program coordinator for groundfish and shellfish in Southeast Alaska for commercial fisheries. Proposal 211. This proposal would clarify regulations regarding fish ticket documentation of rockfish overages in the groundfish and halibut fisheries.

The proposal would add— would also add a demersal shelf rockfish overage reporting requirement for for the Eastern Gulf of Alaska salmon troll fishery. Mr. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anybody like to speak to this last proposal?

Mr. Chair, I just would like to say that we are currently working on a substitute language that will come in an RC with the Alaska Wildlife Troopers on further reflection and collaboration with the troopers. Part of this, part of this proposal has statewide implications regarding rockfish bycatch and groundfish and halibut fisheries. We will still retain the portion of it that refers to the salmon troll fishery. Mr.

Chair, thank you for that.

No questions. All right. That concludes the proposals, and I will I will turn the chair back over to Ms. Van— Chairman VanDort. Mr. Ziray, well done. That has got to be a record committee.

Good job. Thank you for giving me the easy one. I will remember that for next time. No, thanks. It sounds like my takeaway from this is there is substitute language that is being crafted that people want to get some eyes on.

So I'm glad that you were able to wrap this committee up when you did so that we have time this afternoon to hopefully get that substitute language completed and distributed so that we can all take a look at it and meet with each other and have conversations about our thoughts on it. Mr. Commissioner? Yeah, I just want to give just a little bit background there. So I met with my staff over lunch hour because I have had concerns about yelloweye rockfish in general. And one of the things we talked about is becoming a little bit more precautionary and moving forward.

And one way we can do that is to reduce the TAC even further than what the precautionary TAC is that was set by the federal government. So you may see something coming forward as a substitute language that has reduced TAC. So now we're trying to determine what that means in terms of some, some additional opportunity under that reduced TAC for, for both non-commercial and commercial uses. And of course, my advice to department and also to individuals, if you are working on substitute language or amended language that you have submitted as an RC or intend to submit as an RC, I highly encourage you to get with a board member to help usher that language through our process, our deliberative process when we get there. So reach out, speak to a board member if you have substitute language.

Just because you submitted it as an RC does not guarantee that a board member is going to pick it up. To take the time to make sure that we have the regulatory specialists have eyes on it and make sure that the language is ready for our deliberations. So there's ample time this afternoon to do that. I would encourage everyone who's got substitute language or amendments that they'd like to see to existing proposals to take advantage of it. All right.

Anything else? Any announcements? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE].

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So Director Nelson just handed me a recommendation to share with folks, and that would be beneficial to get RCs for Committee 1 submitted absolutely no later than 8:00 AM so that we can distribute those RCs by 8:30 AM or sooner so that we can begin deliberations around 9:00 AM. So giving a little bit of a window in there to get it through our RC distribution process so that we can all have a chance to at least read it before we start deliberating and make sure that our deliberations go smoothly. So thank you for that suggestion. I think that makes good sense. Any questions from members?

All right. We will see you tomorrow morning at 8:30 AM with deliberations starting around— yeah, we will start deliberations at 9:00 AM. But we will be here in the room and in the building, hopefully available, and we will get those RCs distributed so we can read them. So we won't begin on the record until 9:00 a.m. With deliberations, but I encourage everybody that should be in this room, staff members, to be here by 8:30 at least.

Thank you.